ALL DAYS THIS LINKS ARE WORKING....NO CHANGES Seen. PLZ DONT MISUSE IT Video conferencing link common for all days. S.NO. COURT NO. COURT LINKS 1. Court No. 1 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court01 2. Court No. 2 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court02 3. Court No. 3 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court03 4. Court No. 4 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court04 5. Court No. 5 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court05 6. Court No. 6 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court06 7. Court No. 7 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court07 8. Court No. 8 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court08 9. Court No. 9 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court09 9A Court no.10 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court10 10. Court No. 11 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court11 11. Court No. 12 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court12 12. Court No. 13 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court13...
Discharge of Public Servants, there is no connection between official duty and offence – No sanction is required for prosecution.
ReplyDeleteIn a case of the prosecution against Judge Hon’ble High Court in the case of Raman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2000 SCC OnLine Raj 226 has ruled as under; “ A] Cri. P.C. Sec. 197 – Sanction for prosecution of High Court Judge – Accused are Additional High Court Judge, Suprintendant of Police Sanjeev Bhatt and others – The accused hatched conspiracy to falsely implicate a shop owner in a case under N.D.P.S. Act and when shop owner submitted to their demands he was discharged – Complaint u.s. 120-B, 195, 196, 342, 347, 357, 368, 388, 458, 482, I.P.c. and Sec. 17, 58 (1), (2) of NDPS Act – Held – there is no connection between official duty and offence – No sanction is required for prosecution – Registration of F.I.R. and investigation legal and proper. B] Cri. P.C. Sec. 156 – Investigation against accused Addl. High Court Judge – Whether prior consultation with Chief Justice is necessary prior filling of F.I.R. against a High Court Judge as has been laid down by Supreme Court in K. Veerswami’s case (1991) (3) SCC 655) – Held – In K. Veerswami’s case Supreme Court observed that the Judges 62 are liable to be dealt with just the same as any other person in respect of criminal offence and only in offence regarding corruption the sanction for criminal prosecution is required – the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court are not applicable in instant case. C] The applicant – Ram Lal Addl. High Court Judge hatched criminal conspiracy – The Bar Association submitted a representation to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India on 11-09- 1997 requesting to not to confirm Raman Lal as Judge of the High Court – Later on he was transferred to Principal Judge of city Civil and Sessions Court at Ahmedabad – S.P. (C.I.D.) Jaipur sent a questionnaire through the registrar, Gujrat High Court to accused Addl. High Court Judge – Chief Justice granted permission to I.O. to interrogate – Later on I.O. sent letter to applicant to remain present before Chief Judicial Magistrate at the time of filing the charge-sheet – Applicant filed petition before High Court challenging it – Petition of applicant was rejected by High Court and Supreme Court in limine – No relief is required to be granted to petitioner in view of the facts of the case. D] Conspiracy – I.P.C. Sec. 120 (B) – Apex court made it clear that an inference of conspiracy has to be drawn on the basis of circumstantial evidence only because it becomes difficult to get direct evidence on the such issue – The offence can only be proved largely from the inference drawn from acts or illegal ommission committed by them in furtherance of a common design – Once such a conspiracy is proved, act of one conspirator becomes the act of the others – A Coconspirator who joins subsequently and commits overt acts 63 in furtherance of the conspiracy must also be held liable – Proceeding against accused cannot be quashed. E] Jurisdiction – Continuing offence – Held – Where complainants allegations are of stinking magnitude and the authority which ought to have redressed it have closed its eyes and not even trid to find out the real offender and the clues for illegal arrest and harassment are not enquired then he can not be let at the mercy of such law enforcing agencies who adopted an entirely indifferent attitude – Legal maxim Necessiatas sub lege Non continetureQuia Qua Quad Alias Non EstLictumNecessitasfacitLictum, Means necessity is not restrained by laws – Since what otherwise is not lawful necessity makes it lawful – Proceeding proper cannot be quashed.”